So many 1963 cars, so little time. Let’s just say that the Riviera was the car I spent the most time in on the showroom floor of the Chevrolet-Buick-Cadillac dealer in town, since the Sting Ray rarely made an appearance. Here’s the full CC on it, if that helps. Meanwhile, I’m sure there are other worthy candidates too.

61 Comments

A very worthwhile nomination. An attractive and long-lived Brooks Stevens design, and one of the earlier SUVs (along with the Scout). In its later iteration, it became one of the very first luxury SUVs, although I prefer the more basic early models.

I had toyed with nominating Brooks Stevens other noteworthy 1963 car, the Studebaker Wagonaire. It, however, turned out to be much less influential than the Jeep. But since I am running out of time to keep nominating Studebakers (PN must be getting sick of me by now), but I still think it is cool, so what the heck. 🙂

The Wagoneer was basically a CAR. The SUV as a concept didn’t yet exist (it was later created exactly for the J/SJ vehicles and pretenders) but at the time it was introduced it was standard with TWO WHEEL DRIVE.

Henry Kaiser and his people never fully gave up on creating a car company. He’d failed with Joe Frazer but had rescued the Jeep part of Willys. AND…he was buying heavily into American Motors, and turning IKA in Argentina into a serious manufacturer.

The Wagoneer was his last gasp. Henry died in 1967; his heirs used Henry’s leverage in AMC to force them to buy Kaiser Jeep (probably to pay estate taxes); but the Wagoneer lived long after those who created it and had designs for it, had been forgotten. Outliving two manufacturers and probably THE oldest continuous design in the Western industrialized world…it set records.

Any way you slice it, total sales numbers, ways it influenced the auto market…the Wagoneer was a bigger impact than the more-glamorous Riv.

Eric VanBuren

Posted December 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

The torsion bar IFS 2wd truck style station wagon was introduced 2 years before the Wagoneer showed up, by International on their Travelall line.

The first use of the term Sports Utility was by Ford for their pickup version of the Bronco. International followed suit almost immediately through they referred to all Scouts as Sport/Utility, whether it was the Roadster, Pickup, Wagon or Sedan version.

In reality it was just an imitator, not an innovator other than its OHC six which didn’t last and the Quadratrac which was just purchased from BorgWarner. The orginal Quadratrac wasn’t really that inovative either the only thing really different than other full time transfer cases was the the center differential lock was vacuum operated. It was also called “emergency mode” rather than spelling out that it locked the center differential like other full time cases. It was basically marketing speak.

The Wagoneer was long lasting that is for certain, but only due to the fact that its parent company(s) couldn’t afford to do anything other than a very minor refresh along the way.

The Riv is far more significant.

JustPassinThru

Posted December 8, 2012 at 5:40 PM

“In reality it was just an imitator, not an innovator other than its OHC six which didn’t last and the Quadratrac which was just purchased from BorgWarner. The orginal Quadratrac wasn’t really that inovative either the only thing really different than other full time transfer cases was the the center differential lock was vacuum operated. It was also called “emergency mode” rather than spelling out that it locked the center differential like other full time cases. It was basically marketing speak”

The size of the package was also remarkable; it was two-thirds the size of the Travelall and the later Suburbans. And both the Suburban and Travelall were contrived, awkward, stretched station-wagon bodies placed on pickup-truck frames. The Wagoneer, by contrast, was a clean-sheet approach; the Gladiator/J-10/J-20 truck was a stretch and modification of the Wagoneer chassis.

The Travelall of that era had three doors, not four.

Quadra-Trac was outsourced from Borg-Warner, true. Many AMC driveline parts had been, over the years.

The Quadra-Trac package was unique in that it had a limited-slip type center differential, using a special adhesive fluid to aid in clutch-pack lockup. Chevrolet tried to answer it with a conventional center-differential; in doing so, mileage dropped and traction did not increase unless the center diff was locked up.

“The Wagoneer was long lasting that is for certain, but only due to the fact that its parent company(s) couldn’t afford to do anything other than a very minor refresh along the way.”

Well, there’s one other minor element involved in there…”customers.” And Chrysler, the final owner was certainly in a position to do something about it. But even with ZERO marketing, the Grand Wagoneer (its final permutation) had sufficient sales to be left in the mix up until 1990.

People wanted it. People STILL want it. There was never a consideration to terminate it – unlike the Riviera.

Eric VanBuren

Posted December 8, 2012 at 7:21 PM

The original transfer case that bore the name Quadratrac did not have a limited slip center differential, the clutch packs did not come until later and the “special fluid” wasn’t much different than adding the limited slip additive you put in a rear axle that uses a limited slip differential.

The original Travelall did only have 3 doors but the 4th door was added at the same time the IFS front suspension was in 1961.

The Travelall was not significantly different sized than the Wagoneer. Its wheelbase was 5-10″ longer and overall length was about 12-15″ longer depending on which range of year you are talking about.

The Rivera did last longer than the Wagoneer too staying on the market until 1999 with only a 1 year hiatus when the new platform wasn’t ready yet.

JustPassinThru

Posted December 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM

The Riviera name stayed on.

The nameplate was on a variety of intermediate and other chasses…I could look the designations up, but why bother? The original Riv had little to do with the boattail Mitchellmobile; neither had much in common with the tarted-up two-door LeSabre variant.

And none of them had much to do with the Toronado/Eldorado chassis later used. Nor the later Mini-Riv.

The Wagoneer was the same body and chassis all through its run.

Your claims on Quadra-Trac don’t square with what I remember; and I remember a lot of it. My father had a 1968 Wagoneer and Quadra-Trac, which came out later, was what he really wanted. He’d obtained the brochures…but then remembered his unhappy experiences with two prior AMC products and decided the hell with it.

There was no non-limited-slip Quadra-Trac prior to 1973. That was the trade name for the then-new concept of putting a slip-resistant center differential in the driveline in place of a transfer case.

Of course, you’re entitled to your favorite and your vote. But from where I stand…outside the GM fanboi corner…one need look at all types of cars, from all sources.

1963 was arguably the last time an independent launched a car so successful, that shook the market so totally, and lasted so long.

Eric VanBuren

Posted December 8, 2012 at 9:27 PM

So the Riv is not significant since it was kept up to date?

I am far from a GM Fanboi just calling it as I see it. What I see is GM admitting, once again that Ford had defined a new market the personal luxury car. It didn’t take long for them to expand on the Riv either since the Toro and Eldo were based on it despite their use of wrong wheel drive.

Full time 4wd in trucks from the big three came before the Quadra-Trac, so the BW 1305 and 1339 was a response to Chrysler’s New Process 203. Chrysler obviously wasn’t going to switch and apparently GM and Ford weren’t interested either. International never got into the full-time fad and stuck with the part-time units. That is the only reason that Jeep was able to brand it the Quadra-Trac because no one else was interested. Even they weren’t that happy with it as it only lasted 6 years before they too went to New Process for the next system to carry the Quadra-Trac name.

I’m not seeing that the Wagoneer “shook the market so totally” it was nothing more than a blip hanging out at the bottom of the sales charts. The Suburban was much more successful and while it lasted the Travelall outsold it too.

Certainly Chrysler could have done something to modernize the Wagoneer but they didn’t because it would have been a loosing proposition. The only reason it was profitable in the small numbers it did sell at at the end of its run was because all the tooling and engineering was long paid for.

JustPassinThru

Posted December 9, 2012 at 2:39 AM

“So the Riv is not significant since it was kept up to date?”

Nameplate hung on a wide variety of different cars, is what you mean. Was Ford keeping the Mercury Cougar “up to date” when they renamed the Montego WAGON a “Cougar”?

Ever ride in a 1960s Travelall or Suburban? Ever ride in a modern Suburban? Somewhat different…the difference between painted metal and leather.

That difference was bridged in the Wagoneer model, which was aimed, not at railroads and the Forest Service but suburban homeowners who wanted comfort and carlike appointments. The Wagoneer provided them and its sales success prodded the market shift.

Eric VanBuren

Posted December 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

What you are describing here That difference was bridged in the Wagoneer model, which was aimed, not at railroads and the Forest Service but suburban homeowners who wanted comfort and carlike appointments. The Wagoneer provided them and its sales success prodded the market shift. is not the Wagoneer but the Travelall. The 61 IFS version was aimed squarely at being the family station wagon with all the comforts of a car. A front suspension, that was designed for a car (I’ll delve into that further in next weeks COAL) that also had things like bucket seats, factory installed AC, power breaks, power steering fancy two tone paint in fashion colors.

Unlike the Wagoneer it was successful at gaining a good chunk of that market as it survived for 15 model years. The IFS Wagoneer only lasted 3.

Sure they still offered the straight axle 2wd and 4wd in both 1/2 and 3/4 ton versions for those looking for a work rig but you could have it both ways.

I’d add in to the mix that Willy’s-Jeep had already been selling their proto-SUV since 1949 – the creatively named “Wagon” model was the first station wagon-type vehicle on the market available with 4WD. It was the same old-tech, truck-level of comfort found in a Suburban but it was more car-like if only by being considerably smaller. They even made a 4-door model, though only in incredibly small numbers. That vehicle was built for 20 years in the US and even longer overseas, and from ’62-’65 it also had the OHC six which is a truly bizarre pairing considering how ancient the platform was, even then.

My impression of Travelall vs. Wagoneer has always been that the Travelall was more trucklike… even after Jeep went to a live-axle front suspension. From very early on, you could order a Wagoneer with lots of “luxury” features while, AFAIK, you couldn’t even get power windows on a Travelall until well into the 1970’s. When Jeep came out with the Super Wagoneer in 1966 it became the definitive archetype of the modern full-size luxury SUV. Prior to that these were all expensive vehicles that were extremely utilitarian in nature, the SW was a distinct turning point where they became expensive vehicles with expensive features, that you could easily live with on a daily basis. It’s real innovation was in packaging, because it was still every bit the same truck underneath… but that was all isolated from the cockpit by power everything, ten feet of thick carpeting, 200lbs. of sound deadening, fancy bucket seats and an interior that would have looked very at home in an Oldsmobile from that era. The Super Wagoneer was not a huge hit in it’s time, but from that point onwards all Wagoneer models became more plush while virtually every Travelall I’ve ever seen, up until the last few years of production, has a very spartan interior.

JustPassinThru

Posted December 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Okay…I see I’m immersed in an argument over significance with an owner-enthusiast. Nobody’s gonna win this one…

I understand the appeal of orphan models. Studebaker has apologists; even though the company basically committed market suicide.

And International has its followers. And sure, the products were so much different than what was sold in the Big Three stores back then…

…TOO different. Travelall production, in fact International light-truck production, was far behind the Wagoneer and Big Three trucks respectively. Moreover the Wagoneer’s appeal GREW. The Travelall and D-series trucks were withdrawn from the market in 1975…simply because they were not selling. IH was in financial straits at the time; but if the models were even somewhat popular they could easily have been sold off; possibly with the International Harvester name…as their tractor line was later sold to Case. And in fact the Scout WAS offered up to any and all comers in 1978 – and no comers came.

Had the IH truck line had a following they could have been purchased by AMC or one of the suddenly-flush Japanese companies.

Was the Travelall significant? I think not. It was a substantial, useful product, sure – but it copied the Suburban concept, narrowcast to rugged institutional customers.

The Jeep Wagoneer, by contrast, became THE franchise – the CJ was sold to businesses and government; but the basket-weave trucks had seen their day. From its introduction to AMC’s launch of the Cherokee and CJ-7, the Wagoneer WAS the passenger Jeep.

While the IH trucks were taking International Harvester down, the Jeep line was propping AMC UP.

Gawd luv ya…we all got our favorites. But I think an empirical measure shows us there was market significance to it beyond the advertising copy.

Eric VanBuren

Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

The Traveall was never available with power windows up front but you could get a power rear window in 1961 and it was a very popular option from the beginning.

What brought the end of the full-size IH truck was a combination of a number of factors. The energy crisis, strikes limiting production of both trucks and engines. At the same time there was a substantial increase in demand for the Loadstar a much more profitable truck that shared the production facility with the Full-size trucks. 1974 saw a big drop in demand due to the energy crisis but until then sales were strong. So strong and profitable that they designed an entierly new chassis for the 1974 models. They would not have authorized such an expenditure if they weren’t profitable. But in the end with a poor 1974 it made more sense to free up the production capacity for the Loadstar.

The Scout was profitable to the end, the major factor in ending its production was emission and fuel economy regulations. The Scout Business Unit had deals in place to meet those regulations but the board of directors nixed the deal as did they with the sale of the Unit to Coachman Industries again after the ink was dry.

Personally I am quite happy that they didn’t make the sale because that meant they stored all the inventory, and much of the tooling only to sell it and rights to reproduce to what is now Light Line Distributors. Which is part of the reason I could still buy “genuine International” exhaust and radiator hoses for my most recent COAL.

Rover p6!
Okay- it may have had a less than stellar reputation in the US, but really it was the p6 that set the mould for small, good handling luxury that BMW didn’t really get right until later in the ’60s. The interior was really unique, and was the first 4 door car to have a ‘driver’s’ interior- with supportive seats, intuitive controls, and a skinny-tie modern International Style.

The suspension was truly unique and revolutionary, and if it were not for the p6, there would be no BMW 3 series, Mercedes w201/C class or any other sporty compact luxury car. Coming from either of those makers, this would be a shock, but coming form Rover, it was unheard of- it is akin to Cadillac in the 80s making a car that a 20 something yuppie would want to spend their own money on.

BMW like to blather on about their 3 series but in reality it wasnt that great and all they did was copy Triumph and Rover in trying to produce a fast touring 4 door and here it was priced too high to be of any signifigance and the high service costs poor reliability and expendsive parts dont do the brand any favours. Drivers car yeah right go drive something with real cornering ability then like me you’ll laugh at bmw

Here Here! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who realises that the ‘ultimate driving machine’ is nothing more than a Veblen Good- namely it is only desireable BECAUSE it’s expensive, not due to any intrinsic qualities. After all, if I want a decent handling rusty car with RWD that overheats, rusts and has nikisil engine failures, a Vega is much, much cheaper than a BMW- and prettier too. If I want a quick, reliable and good handling car that’s built like a tank, I’d buy a Saab 900 classic- which I did.

By the way BMW- ‘good handling’ does NOT mean having the rear end break loose on roundabouts whenever the ground is anything less than dry- and should not need fancy electronics to do what others do with good engineering.

As the current owner of a BMW 3 series, who previously owned a Saab 900S (pre GM), you made me laugh at the statement that a classic 900 is at all “reliable”. My BMW is not perfect, but it is a Toyota Corolla compared to the Swedish machine.

This gets into a tricky question about whether we consider cars based on the calendar year in which they debuted or the model year. (The Riviera was a ’63 model, but debuted in late 1962, for example.) The P6 was introduced in 1963, but not until October, so I think it was considered a ’64 model. Ditto the arch-rival Triumph 2000 saloon, which made its public debut around the same time but wasn’t really available in any numbers until early the following year.

I’m torn, the Vette is the best looking Vette ever but my Buick loyalty has to say Riv. It does mark GM’s belated answer to the T-bird and kicks off the personal car wars and the personal car was a large force in the market for years to come.

A “belated response” that, in old school GM style, made the other guys’ stuff look like rough drafts of the real thing. Even as a Mopar homer, I can’t believe they sold any big 2-doors in ’63, when you could have one of these.

I nominate the 1963 Honda S500, which was Honda’s first car. The first-gen Honda Civic, a global hit sold in high volume, came only ten years later.

Also noteworthy as a dandy hot little car. DOHC inline 4 with four carburetors and a 9500 rpm redline. Only 531 cc, but the S500 is so light it reaches 80 mph. Even better, a wild dual-chain-drive IRS rear end. The differential is fixed, and each half-shaft drives a chain on a trailing link that swings just like a motorcycle’s. Kinky and delicious!

It’s hard to vote against the Stingray, but in my eyes, the Vette screams “60s,” while the LaSalle Riviera continues to look very contemporary and classy 50 years later. With only minor changes to details, GM could have launched this car in 1973 or 1983 and it would have looked brand new. Count me as a vote for the Buick.

Ok I put it on the wrong thread but the big deal here for 63 was the red motor in the EH Holden it took Holdens from having dismal performance up into Vauxhall pace which in 65 was THE fastest accelerating car available in UK with 4 doors.

If I am allowed, I would nominate the 1963 Chrysler Turbine, the most advanced somewhat-production car of its day. Chrysler had 50 cars that they loaned out to people for 3 months at a time, so between 1963 and 1966 at least, you could see these cars plying the public roads.

Wouldn’t 1963 be a bit early for the 230SL? Mine, number 2750, was a 1964 model.

My most memorable 1963 car was my New Yorker station wagon. It belonged to this oddball character I knew, and had been thoroughly but rather quickly recolored from white on burgundy to gold and black. The dash and door panels were black, the seats black and gold vinyl, the carpets were long gold-yellow shag with an extra rug to cover the cargo area when the rear seat was down. The paint was gold metallic with a fake black vinyl top. This was one unique big 4-door hardtop wagon, no doubt about it.

Like I’d had to with a previous car I’d bought from John, I had to go to the previous owner to get the title – John never bothered with such paperwork. The previous owner readily gave me the title, and told me that he would never have given it to John until John finished paying for the car.

I didn’t ever drive it very much, as I had five or six other cars at the time – 1975 or so – and when my father told me once that he really liked its looks I ended up giving it to him. He had recently retired and it ended up being one of his playtoys for a couple of years. Considering how much of his money I put into cars and gasoline when I was still living at home I thought that was a fair trade.

So let’s hear it for big 413-powered New Yorker 4-door hardtop station wagons – cars that could only have been dreamed up and sold in the USA.

Never a Corvette fan, I used to absolutely LOVE the silver-blue split window one of my neighbors purchased new and quite often parked on the street. I am sure he wondered why there was always drool on the windows.

B-L-E-R. As much as I like the Riviera, the Grand Prix, the Split-Window Vette and all the rest, I’m lobbying hard for the Sensible Spectaculars. They were ahead of their time; they were Volvos before Volvos were Volvos, if that makes any sense. Maybe I’m a bit biased, though. I grew up with a ’64 American 330 station wagon rather like your avatar. We had that car for ten years. It never let us down, and it was still running great when they replaced it with… never mind.

Chalk up another vote for the Riv. The ‘vette has it’s charms, but Chevy didn’t really get this car right until ’65 in my opinion. I’m curious though, were the knockoffs shown in the picture available from the factory?

Much as I love the styling of both the Corvette and the Grand Prix, the Riviera is a masterpiece. It exudes class, elegance and sophistication from every angle. An absolute knockout. My vote for the most beautiful postwar American car.

An absolutely beautiful automobile, probably Bill Mitchell’s best effort, although my favorite is still the Avanti, but it beats the Riv by just a hair. My favorite Rivera was the ’65; it dispensed with the fake louvers on the hood and the body which gave it a busy look.

It is amazing to look back at that time period from 1961 to 1963-I don’t know exactly why but I’ve always felt there more more beautifully styled cars-the ’61 Continental, the 63 Thunderbird, the Studebaker Hawk and Avanti, the ’63 Pontiac GP, the Rivera and the Corvette Sting Ray-than at any time in automotive history.

Some more nominations:
Alfa Romeo Giulia
Lancia Fulvia
Sunbeam Alpine series 3 (redesign to vastly improve trunk space)
Triumph 2000 saloon
TVR Griffith
Lotus Cortina – we have had many cars described as sports sedans, but has there ever been a more significant one than this?

I love the Fulvia, but I’m not so crazy about the sedan version… which is all you could get for the first two years. I also love the Honda S500 MikePDX nominated above (great pick), and I’ll admit I never would have thought of either of them had you guys not mentioned them. It’s very tough for me to consider anything but American cars for the first half of the 60’s. In my mind, it was undoubtedly the pinnacle of American automotive style and substance, easy to forget that it was a high point for much the rest of the world too.

Though the Vette, Riv and GP are much more desirable and much better looking, I nominate the Plymouth Valiant. It atoned for Chrysler’s sins of 57 and 62. The new design for 63 got them back in the ball game and it eventually became one of the first cockroaches of the road.

The Corvette. I remember when I finally saw a new ’63 Sting Ray for the first time, mesmerized by its beauty through the window of a school bus as I was riding home from elementary school. I can’t remember the first time I saw any of the other nominees.

The ’63 split-window Corvette was brilliantly done and influential, but, like the ’61 Jaguar XK-E, just within it’s niche.

So, that leaves the Riviera and Wagoneer. Like the Corvette, the Riviera is a beautiful, trend-setting, classic design. OTOH, while 2-door, personal luxury cars were de rigeuer for a long time (starting with the 1958 Thunderbird), where are they now?

I’ll take the Sting Ray (or Stingray, or however they were spelling it that year), s’il vous plait.

As others have said, the Riviera might have taken the trophy had the ’65 hidden headlights had arrived in ’63. (Also, why no Riv convertible ever?) And the Pontiac is a fine looking automobile as well, no question, but the C2 was really in a class by itself. I’d probably give it the CCOTY for its dash/console layout alone, nevermind the beautiful body and prodigious power. I can’t think of a cockpit I’d rather command. You really would feel like John Glenn at the wheel of one of these.

Except John Glenn didn’t drive a Corvette. I think he started out in a Nash Metropolitan (according to ‘The Right Stuff’), then when the astronauts became famous, some Chevy dealer let them drive whichever car they wanted (at a very low lease rate). While everyone else took a ‘Vette, Glenn chose a station wagon (he had a family).

Eventually, I think he switched to Fords/Mercurys. There’s a photo somewhere of him in a mid-sixties Mercury convertible.